• Civ7 is already available! Happy playing :).

How about... literal "Flying" commander?

gdr_willter

Korean Civ Fan
Joined
Oct 8, 2024
Messages
695
I know all of the air units in Civ franchise need to be placed in the tile/unit with runway, and it is very realistic. But the land runways can't move, the aircraft carriers are not enough fast compared with air units, so this system is one of the reason we felt dulled of air combat. (The others are the slow animation and the short combat range)

When I heard the aircraft carriers in Civ 7 is now the commander unit, I was struck by this cool game design. It completely fit with the coherent commander system, and also can describe the role of real carriers. And moreover, it clearly solved the problem that carriers can't promote because they don't fight themselves. I always use the mod that carriers get exp from its aircrafts in Civ 6, so this change is what exactly I wanted to see.

Now I'm considering to utilize this approach to the other air combat model which was not really shown in the Civ franchise: AWACS and Tanker. It can be a final figure of the aerial commanders which can freely moves around for a few turns while containing a bunch of aircraft units. To justify it, I think we can adopt the wisdom of Civ 2, which allowed bombers to stay airborne more than a turn. I prefer 5 or 10 turns for its free moving limit, but it can be changed.

The followings are my concerns and answers about this idea:
  1. Name of the commander unit: Basically, it have to be a Tanker as the air unit which supports other aircrafts to longer thier flight. At the same time, it have to be an AWACS as the flying commander. I think it would be better to name it just an "Airborne Commander" and give it two promotion lines named after AWACS and Tanker.
  2. Compatibility with the Modern Age that ended at the mid 20c: we narrowly can get the helicopter, but Tanker and AWACS can't join in that period. So I think it can be an idea for the expansion DLC: like the 4th Age or the extended final stage of Modern Age.
  3. Balance with the aircraft carrier: If the airborne commander is too powerful, we don't need to use aircraft carriers. Except the limited turn, the airborne commander is faster, freer, and safer than carriers. It's an unfair comparison considering the gap of their time of introduction IRL. So I think we need Super Carrier as the successor of aircraft carriers, which will contain more aircrafts and grant a powerful repairing bonus. It allows users to choice between the fast airborne commander and the massive super carrier.
 
I know all of the air units in Civ franchise need to be placed in the tile/unit with runway, and it is very realistic. But the land runways can't move, the aircraft carriers are not enough fast compared with air units, so this system is one of the reason we felt dulled of air combat. (The others are the slow animation and the short combat range)

When I heard the aircraft carriers in Civ 7 is now the commander unit, I was struck by this cool game design. It completely fit with the coherent commander system, and also can describe the role of real carriers. And moreover, it clearly solved the problem that carriers can't promote because they don't fight themselves. I always use the mod that carriers get exp from its aircrafts in Civ 6, so this change is what exactly I wanted to see.

Now I'm considering to utilize this approach to the other air combat model which was not really shown in the Civ franchise: AWACS and Tanker. It can be a final figure of the aerial commanders which can freely moves around for a few turns while containing a bunch of aircraft units. To justify it, I think we can adopt the wisdom of Civ 2, which allowed bombers to stay airborne more than a turn. I prefer 5 or 10 turns for its free moving limit, but it can be changed.

The followings are my concerns and answers about this idea:
  1. Name of the commander unit: Basically, it have to be a Tanker as the air unit which supports other aircrafts to longer thier flight. At the same time, it have to be an AWACS as the airborne commander. I think it would be better to name it just an "Airborne Commander" and give it two promotion lines named after AWACS and Tanker.
  2. Compatibility with the Modern Age that ended at the mid 20c: we narrowly can get the helicopter, but Tanker and AWACS can't join in that period. So I think it can be an idea for the expansion DLC: like the 4th Age or the extended final stage of Modern Age.
  3. Balance with the aircraft carrier: If the airborne commander is too powerful, we don't need to use aircraft carriers. Except the limited turn, the airborne commander is faster, freer, and safer than carriers. It's an unfair comparison considering the gap of their time of introduction IRL. So I think we need Super Carrier as the successor of aircraft carriers, which will contain more aircrafts and grant a powerful repairing bonus. It allows users to choice between the fast airborne commander and the massive super carrier.
While cool sounding, those are probably better given as
tanker-a big mission range boost (either from tech, promotion, etc.)
AWACS-a big vision range increase, or an ability to “scan” a certain area.
 
Interesting Idea, I just think it makes more sense for the air commanders to be carrier or airbases.
They would be monitoring radar and in coordination with other forces.
I can't think of any commander that would be physically in the air and has to worry about their own piloting while also overseeing the battlefield.

That's not to say we couldn't have tankers as units you could deploy, just to me it seems simpler that you would just have a promotion called "Air tanker" that extends the range of your units.
 
Now I'm considering to utilize this approach to the other air combat model which was not really shown in the Civ franchise: AWACS and Tanker. It can be a final figure of the aerial commanders which can freely moves around for a few turns while containing a bunch of aircraft units. To justify it, I think we can adopt the wisdom of Civ 2, which allowed bombers to stay airborne more than a turn. I prefer 5 or 10 turns for its free moving limit, but it can be changed.
Doesn't the squadron commander already kinda works like that? From the stream I understand them as a moveable airbase, being able to change its location to other friendly territory plain tile in rage, so basically moving the base of operation with all the planes on it.
 
I'm a little bit concerned about being able to locate Squadron Commanders close to combat areas. I think they clicked on the SquadCom's move button, but it didn't show any eligible tiles on the screen.
 
I'm a little bit concerned about being able to locate Squadron Commanders close to combat areas. I think they clicked on the SquadCom's move button, but it didn't show any eligible tiles on the screen.
At least seems like you could embark it / put it on a naval commander to transport it to another place when you can't just rebase in range. But we need more details on that.
 
At least seems like you could embark it / put it on a naval commander to transport it to another place when you can't just rebase in range. But we need more details on that.
I thought Ed said something to the effect of you can pack them up, but they need to be unpacked on unimproved friendly tile. I'm hoping that means home & allies but not neutral, unpacking right on unclaimed enemy border seems spamy. I'd love to plop one behind a fort just load it with dive bombers to cover defense for a whole border.
 
Top Bottom